your views please on Mk1 C5 2.0 Hdi automatics please?

[myglaren]

Not heard of any C5 strut top failures but there have been a couple of C6s go.

[falling-out-with-my-car]

They are to far out of my price range to worry about fortunately Steve.

Thanks.

[CitroJim]

Good, sound advice James...

[RichardW]

If looking for a MK3 Hydraulic, there are some things to consider.... 1) the rack has a tendency to leak at the pinion due to corrosion; north of a grand to fix: 2) the front rams like to fail, and they are nearly £500 each, plus fitting: 3) the front swivel joints fail for fun, they're not too dear, but replacement is a bit of a pain.

[wurlycorner]

Nigel, where are you? It might be worth seeing if there is a c5 knowing forum member nearby that could come and have a look at a car with you?
Ideally someone with a lexia so they can plug in and interrogate the car for faults.

Nb: just clear up some incorrect statements made on here earlier... The wiring looms and software for all the extra exclusive kit (multi function central display, instrument binnacle with battery charge gauge, electric seats, CD changers, cruise, h3+ etc) are all there on base spec Mark 1 LX models. See my c5 profile thread (I haven't bothered with auto wipe, decided that was a waste of space and would probably annoy me more than assist!)

As for the 138/110/90 bhp 2.0 diesel debate. IMO the 110 is ok. The 138bhp goes like stink in comparison. I wouldn't fancy the 90 (thats the only one I haven't driven, but can't foresee less grunt than the 110 being tolerable). Horses for courses though.

[CitroJim]

That has got to be the best advice yet in this thread Iain...

[wurlycorner]

Dammit. Looks like I've managed to blow my quota for 2017 in one post, early!

[falling-out-with-my-car]

My 90 estate is as quick as the 2litre 138 auto.

[CitroJim]

My 90 estate is as quick as the 2litre 138 auto.

Has yours been tweaked Nigel?

I had a lot of trouble keeping up with a C5 X7 2.0 auto in my 1.9TD yesterday... They are blisteringly quick... Not sure if the X7 has the 138 or is even more powerful now...

I do know that whilst the old 1.9TD goes well with its 90 horses (and mine does) it's by no means quick by modern standards...

The thing I most like about it is how frugal it is...

[falling-out-with-my-car]

0-60 11.6 seconds for a 90 that's not to bad at all. I think the hdi 110 is roughly the same. All I did was remove the cat to gain 4-5bhp. Apparently blanking off the egr gives you another 3. I am finding it. Difficult to accept the fuel figures on later models. Most only seem capable of just over 50mpg. Autos even worse. I don't think I could stomach 30 mpg around town on diesel. I thought we were supposed to be saving energy not burning more and more of it. I suppose for every five owners of a 1.5 diesel that does 70mpg someone has to own a 2.2 litre auto. Don't forget that the x7 has 6 gears to play with and most seem to have 138bhp or higher I've seen a 360bhp v6 on auto trader for sale at 25 grand.

[CitroJim]

Ahh, now mine still has a cat (brand new) and also has working EGR... Might be the difference...

Mine does 60mpg on a run the way I drive it... For a 30 year old engine design that's pretty good in my book!

And I've never seen one puff of smoke out of it...

[falling-out-with-my-car]

I figured it out Jim the seal on the compressor side of the turbo going causes the engine to burn the sump oil on acceleration as it doing now.I always got 65 to the gallon without a cat fitted on a run the turbo specialists say that if the egr electro valves pack up the egr no longer kicks in this makes the turbo run hotter than usual thus inbturn destroys the turbo oil seals.

[CitroJim]

Now that's interesting on the EGR and turbo relationship Nigel...

[GiveMeABreak]

You have to remember the X7 is generally a heavier car to lug about with Kerb weights to about 1763 for the 3.0 HDi V6 (240) models, whereas the earlier C5s were about 1480 to 1520 for the 3.0 Litre Models. Incidentally - that 3.0 you saw on Autotrader might be nearer the Torque, as the 3.0 HDi generates 240 Bhp and less for the 2.7 HDi, so that's probably a typo by the dealers as usual!

[falling-out-with-my-car]

Yes Jim it is interesting apparently carbon damage blocking the oilways as much as 30% can start in an hdi around 22k so a 70k service interval is completely pointless as the damage can already be done to the turbo oil feed pipe
They recommend 3k oil changes to keep the hdi carbon deposit free. This also applies to the 1600 hdi diesels that typically suffer turbo failure. This is why new turbos fitted can only last a few hundred miles before failing again because the engine oil ways are clogged up with carbon particles a particle 1mm across can destroy a turbo apparently they don't like dirt in the oil
makes me wonder if we should backtrack find the subject " bypassing the electro valves" and advise. That doing so will make the turbo run hotter possibly destroying the oil seals and then the turbo burning the sump oil . apparently Jim it is very rare for this to. Happen on an xud it is more likely on an hdi. So the turbo experts say. The trouble is that it does nothing to boost the second hand market if oil changes have not been done on an hdi engine at 3k intervals the carbon deposits will already be there in oil ways just waiting to break off and travel to the turbo. For people like me who will never be able to afford to buy a new car I find that pretty terrifying to be honest. They did say you can have the pickup strainer replaced with a finer mesh on some engines as a precaution.